11,500/9,200 to 8,000 years ago Lepenski Vir Iron-Gates Culture of the Balkans

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref

I think the possible references are most likely a reference to how the world underwater was the underworld, land of the dead, or ancestors, so fish could reference the avatars for ancestors. It is also possible they were or later became associated with deities or clan totems. Ancestors were commonly associated with the heavens of stars but what we need to remember is many early cultures saw the heavens as a cosmic ocean, celestial river, or heavenly waters. 

 Cosmic Ocean or Celestial River 

“A cosmic ocean or celestial river is a mythological motif found in the mythology of many cultures and civilizations, representing the world or cosmos as enveloped by primordial waters. In creation myths, the primordial waters are often represented as originally having filled the entire universe, being the first source of the gods’ cosmos with the act of creation corresponding to the establishment of an inhabitable space separate from the enveloping waters.” ref “In the first creation story in the Bible, there is only earth and water: “Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.” (…). (Genesis 1:2.) The world is also created as a space inside of the water, and is hence surrounded of it, “And God saith, `Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.’ ” (Genesis 1:6).” ref 

Heavenly Waters

“The Heavenly Waters draws from the Mesopotamian tradition associating the dim area between Sagittarius and Orion with the god Ea and the Waters of the Abyss. Aquarius and Capricornus, derived from Mesopotamian constellations, would have been natural members had they not already been assigned to the Zodiac group. Instead, Menzel expanded the area and included several disparate constellations, most associated with water in some form: Delphinus, Equuleus, Eridanus, Piscis Austrinus, Carina, Puppis, Vela, Pyxis, and Columba. Carina, Puppis, and Vela historically formed part of the former constellation Argo Navis, which in Greek tradition represented the ship of Jason.” ref  

This, to me, is similar to “how stars represented where represented at fish in the Harappan and Indus script where ‘Fish’ pictograms generally meant ‘Star.’ In the Sumerian script, the ‘star’ pictogram means not only dingir ‘god’ but also anu ‘sky’, and Anu was the leading divinity of the Sumerian pantheon, his symbol started also meaning ‘godhead’, and then ‘god’ in general.” ref 

“In Sumerian mythology, Nammu/Namma, was a primeval goddess, corresponding to Tiamat in Babylonian mythology.   Nammu was the Goddess sea (Engur) that gave birth to An (heaven) and Ki (earth) and the first gods, representing the Apsu, the fresh water ocean that the Sumerians believed lay beneath the earth, the source of life-giving water and fertility in a country with almost no rainfall.” ref 

“The ‘fish’ pictogram of the Indus script appears to have had a somewhat similar background. The reason why ‘fish’ and not ‘star’ was selected to represent the concept of ‘god’ seems to be that in the Early Harappan religion the fish occupied a central position: fish is one of the most popular motifs of the Early Harappan painted pottery (Fig. 9). As the aquatic animal par excellence, it appears to symbolize the God of Waters. The importance of this deity in the Harappan pantheon is proved by his popularity in the Harappan iconography.” ref 

The famous “Proto-Siva” wears the horns of a water-buffalo, another animal closely associated with water. ref 

“The first seal depicts a nude male and possible deity with three faces, seated in yogic position on a throne, wearing bangles on both arms and an elaborate headdress. Five symbols of the Indus script appear on either side of the headdress which is made of two outward projecting buffalo style curved horns, with two upward projecting points. A single branch with three pipal leaves rises from the middle of the headdress.” ref 

“The second is a thought to be a Harappan “Proto-Siva” depicted on a seal from Mohenjo-daro. In one Indus-type cylinder seal from the Near East, this buffalo-horned deity is surrounded by a pair of buffaloes, a pair of snakes, and a pair of fish (drawn exactly like the ‘fish’ pictograms of the Indus script).” ref 

 Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

THE INVENTORY OF DANUBE SCRIPT SIGNS 

“There are said to be around 292 sign types from a catalog of 5,421 actual signs recorded from the corpus of 1178 inscriptions and 971 inscribed artifacts (some finds have more than one inscription). This means that each inventoried sign has an average frequency of more than 18.5 times. Due to the wide geographic area and long period under investigation, 1178 inscriptions and 971 inscribed artifacts are not enough to settle definitively the inventory of the signs. Precucuteni-Cucuteni-Ariuşd-Trypillia inscribed finds and inscriptions, whereas in that cultural complex a system of writing related the Danube script possibly occurred and not the Danube script itself upon 148 objects and 156 inscriptions from the Turdaş culture; and upon 151 objects and 164 inscriptions from the Vinča culture.” ref 

“The inventories of all ancient writing systems are composed of a high number of signs (from hundreds to thousands of signs), because the logographic principle of ars scribendi demands individual signs for rendering individual concepts or ideas. In a comparative view, the some more of 320-350 signs of the Danube script, once settled the inventory, are much less than the 760 individual signs of the Egyptian hieroglyphic in the second millennium BC, the 770 signs operated by the Ancient Sumerian pictography (of the Uruk III and IV periods) or the nearly 1000 signs belonging to the repertory of the Proto-Elamite script. The analogous number of signs listed by the Danube script and the ancient Indus (410) is not a coincidence, but roots in similar function according to a networking “inhabited”  society.” ref 

“The amount of signs employed by the Danube script poses the question of the function and developing path of this system of writing. Was the relatively low number of signs due to the specialized nature of the script as sacral tool utilized in liturgies? Alternatively, are they in limited figures because the system of writing was “frozen” by the collapse of the Danube civilization when it was in transition from a chiefly logographic system, which neglected the sound sequences of spoken words in favor of the concepts to be transmitted, to a logographic one with more significant (or less insignificant) phonetic components?” ref 

“The main partition of the 292 inventoried signs is between 203 abstract signs, 52 pictograms/ideograms, and 37 numerical signs. The categories of signs operate in an integrated way. The boundaries of  division by three parts in progress. Since the Palaeolithic assemblage, there is evidence of the human capacity to produce figurative images (depicting natural phenomena, living beings, structures and artifacts in representational style) as well as abstract signs and geometrical motifs such as rows of dots and grids. Concerning the Danube script categorizes as abstract signs the basic geometric forms that lack any recognizable visual association with natural or artificial objects and phenomena (V, X, Y, lozenge, triangle…). It has been identified as pictograms/ideograms signs depicting occurrences resulting from natural forces, living creatures or objects that can be recognized in association with the figurative sense of that time and although the high degree of stylization (e.g., the depiction of a sledge or a flag).” ref 

“The author does not exclude that the refining of the analysis in light of the tendency of the Danube civilization toward the stabilization of sign forms will lead from the abstract field to the pictographic/ideographic field, or reversely. Statistical evidence leads to identify some sign that functioned as numerals, although the detection is still quite putative.If the establishment of the border between abstractness and iconography in sign shape is in progress and partially presumptive, a firm point – comparing the Danube script with the other ancient scripts – is its high degree of abstractness, the proportions of abstract signs that serve to render information outnumber iconic signs. Abstractness and schematization of sign shape are among the prominent features of the Danube script.” ref 

“In the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic of Southeastern Europe, the angle-sign was employed not only asornamental motif, but also as symbol conveying messages. The linear, discrete, and complex arrangement of the V and the Λ with Y, W and N signs along two clearly intentional registers characterizes the Mousterian bone from Bacho Kiro, in Bulgaria, dated 44,000-42,000 BP. A“summa” of the geometric forms based on the angle occurs on an amulet from Mitoc-Malu Galben (Northeastern Romania), which is dated 2,6400 +- 10,400 BP.” ref 

“The geometric and numerological patterns engraved on a fragment of bone recovered at Ţibrinu (Romania), 20,000 year ago, are based on combinations of angles. Angles occur, among other linear geometries, on an Upper Palaeolithic rib of a polar reindeer unhearted at Cosăuţi (Republic of Moldavia). From the same site, a V associated with a \ appears on the back of a zomorphic figurine. Precise sequences of V, <>, >< (as well as X, and meanders) compose messages on long-necked humanoids- birds discovered at Mezin and Mezhirich (Ukraine). They belong to c. 19,000-17,000 years ago. V and Λ are positioned in opposition on a Mesolithic bone found at the shelter Lviv VII.” ref 

“Within the framework of the Danube script, the angle-sign is structured in 4 root-signs (V, Λ, <, >) and 52 derived signs from the three above-mentioned rules: 22 from the V; 20 from the Λ; 6 from the <; and 4 from the >. The four versions of the angle-sign score the highest recurrence in the data bank: 27.8% of the abstract signs and 19.9% of the totality of the signs. In addition, they are the most frequent sign in combination with others. They appear often in evidence, preeminence or with expanded dimension on ritual vases, figurines,votive altars, seals, miniature vessels. Finally, in many instances they are closely associated with female divinities iconography on whose body is incised single or in combination with other distinctive marks of the deity and its attributes. Gimbutas associates this sign with the Bird Goddess. In the Danube civilization, the down pointed angle was part of the set of key mark sappearing in the whole range of channels for communication messages to be conveyed. As investigated in the chapter “Matrix of semiotic rules and markers…”, it is a frequent element of decorations on human and animal statuettes, pots and mignon altars. On figurines, the V, simple or replied into a chevron, is often prominently draped as sex or, around the neck, as symbolic necklace or V-necked attire.” ref 

“In other instances,this sign represents the eye of the statuette. In the Danube script, the V is the most important root-sign scoring the main number of occurrences and variants. It can appear both single or as element of bi-more sign inscriptions. The V is a permanent sign of the Danube script, being present throughout the whole sequence of it from the Formative phase up to the Eclipse phase. However, it is concentrated in the Neolithic. The high frequency in the Formative phase of the script confirms its seniority and early utilization in the Serbian-Romanian area of the Starčevo-Criş (Körös) cultural complex. The Vinča was the culture that employed the V at most during the Middle/Developed and Late Neolithic.” ref 

“In the Copper Age, the hub of the V movedtowards south being mainly present, in Early Copper Age, in the Gradešnica-Brenica culture and Gradešnica-Slatino I-III and Slatino IV assemblage; in the Middle Copper Age, it moved in the Karanovo VI – Gumelniţa B – Kodžadermen assemblage. The most frequent inscribed objects bearing Vs are pot shards and human figurines. Remarkable is also the presence on mignon altars-offering tables and vessels. The typology of the artifacts and the distinctive position of the V on them evidence the historical importance with religious signification of this sign. In the Formative phase of the system of writing, nearly half of the Vs are concentrated on mignon altars-offering tables confirming the sacral origin and utilization of the Danube script. Due to the productiveness of the V in the number of variants, it will be utilized in order to illustrate the three above-mentioned ways (and related criticalities) according to which root-signs can be modified to enlarge their repertory.” ref 

To me, the Lepenski Vir Iron-Gates Culture of the Balkans may relate to other cultures in the general area from other times like the Gravettian and Epigravettian and in a defused way maybe the Magdalenian 

 Picture Links:  ref 

“The Gravettian (30,000 to 20,000 years) is drawn in black and white; the subsequent Magdalenian (17,000 to 10,000 years) and Hamburgian (13,000-11,750 years) are in light blue and red. It is not known whether the spread of the Gravettian was a result of diffusion of people or cultures. This figure illustrates the possible monocentric origins of the Gravettian, in which the Gravettian is hypothesized to have its origin in the Middle Danube Basin, first spreading west (solid lines) and later spreading east and southeast (dashed lines). This scenario is largely based on the chronology of sites. Thus far, genome-wide data has been collected from only three of the ten< Gravettian regions indicated on the map. These regions are northern Austria (1 sample), the Czech Republic (6), southern Italy (3) and Belgium (3), indicating that they all share a genomic ancestry. However, it is unknown whether samples from the remaining regions also share a close genomic ancestry. Some skeletal remains associated with the Gravettian that could be investigated paleogenomically are from Sungir (Russia); Laghar Velho (central Portugal); Cussac Cave; Les Garennes, near Vilhonneur; and Level 2 at Abri Pataud116 (western France). Light blue and light red regions represent the approximate distributions of the Magdalenian Culture and the Hamburgian Culture (13,000-11,750 years). Figure adapted from Kozłowski.” ref 

“The fairly homogeneous post-15,000 years ago the population of mainland Europe labeled WHG (represented by Villabruna) appear to represent a deep strain of ancestry that seems to have contributed to West Eurasians from the Gravettian era down to the Neolithic period.” ref 

“Haplogroup R1b in the ~14,000-year-old Villabruna individual from Italy. While the predominance of R1b in western Europe today owes its origin to Bronze Age migrations from the eastern European steppe, its presence in Villabruna and in a ~7,000-year-old farmer from Iberia document a deeper history of this haplotype in more western parts of Europe. Additional evidence of an early link between west and east comes from the HERC2 locus, where a derived allele that is the primary driver of light eye color in Europeans appears nearly simultaneously in specimens from Italy and the Caucasus ~14,000-13,000 years ago.”  ref 

“Villabruna is representative of the WHG group. We also include ElMiron, the best sample from the Magdalenian era as we noticed that within the WHG group there were individuals that could not be modeled as a simple clade with Villabruna but also had some ElMiron-related ancestry. Ddudzuana is representative of the Ice Age Caucasus population, differentiated from Villabruna by Basal Eurasian ancestry. AG3 represents ANE/Upper Paleolithic Siberian ancestry, sampled from the vicinity of Lake Baikal, whileRussia_Baikal_EN related to eastern Eurasians and represents a later layer of ancestry from the same region of Siberia as AG3.” ref 

“It has been suggested that there is an Anatolia Neolithic-related affinity in hunter-gatherers from the Iron Gates. Our analysis confirms this by showing that this population has Dzudzuana-related ancestry as do many hunter-gatherer populations from southeastern Europe, eastern Europe, and Scandinavia. These populations cannot be modeled as a simple mixture of Villabruna and AG3 but require extra Dzudzuana-related ancestry even in the conservative estimates, with a positive admixture proportion inferred for several more in the speculative ones. Thus, the distinction between European hunter-gatherers and Near Eastern populations may have been gradual in pre-Neolithic times; samples from the Aegean (intermediate between those from the Balkans and Anatolia) may reveal how gradual the transition between Dzudzuana-like Neolithic Anatolians and mostly Villabruna-like hunter-gatherers was in southeastern Europe.” ref 

“Villabruna: This type of ancestry differentiates between present-day Europeans and non-Europeans within West Eurasia, attaining a maximum of ~20% in the Baltic in accordance with previous observations and with the finding of a later persistence of significant hunter-gatherer ancestry in the region. Its proportion drops to ~0% throughout the Near East. Interestingly, a hint of such ancestry is also inferred in all North African populations west of Libya in the speculative proportions, consistent with an archaeogenetic inference of gene flow from Iberia to North Africa during the Late Neolithic.” ref 

“ElMiron: This type of ancestry is absent in present-day West Eurasians. This may be because most of the Villabruna-related ancestry in Europeans traces to WHG populations that lacked it (since ElMiron-related ancestry is quite variable within European hunter-gatherers). However, ElMiron ancestry makes up only a minority component of all WHG populations sampled to date and WHG-related ancestry is a minority component of present-day Europeans.” ref 

Regional diversity in subsistence among early farmers in Southeast Europe revealed by archaeological organic residues  

“The spread of early farming across Europe from its origins in Southwest Asia was a culturally transformative process which took place over millennia. Within regions, the pace of the transition was probably related to the particular climatic and environmental conditions encountered, as well as the nature of localized hunter-gatherer and farmer interactions. The establishment of farming in the interior of the Balkans represents the first movement of Southwest Asian livestock beyond their natural climatic range, and widespread evidence now exists for early pottery being used extensively for dairying. However, pottery lipid residues from sites in the Iron Gates region of the Danube in the northern Balkans show that here, Neolithic pottery was being used predominantly for processing aquatic resources. This stands out not only within the surrounding region but also contrasts markedly with Neolithic pottery use across wider Europe. These findings provide evidence for the strategic diversity within the wider cultural and economic practices during the Neolithic, with this exceptional environmental and cultural setting offering alternative opportunities despite the dominance of farming in the wider region.” ref 

SUBSISTENCE STRATEGIES IN THE STONE AGE, DIRECT AND INDIRECT EVIDENCE OF FISHING AND GATHERING GRAVETTIAN AND EPIGRAVETTIAN IN THE CENTRAL BALKANS

“Numerous caves and rock-shelters in the Central Balkans contain Pleistocene deposits with Paleolithic artifacts and faunal remains. Gravettian and Epigravettian lithic artifacts, accompanied with abundant faunal remains, were initially documented in Šalitrena cave, near Mionica in western Serbia. Recently, four new sites with the Last Glacial deposits, including Gravettian occupation layers, have been discovered in the mountainous region of the Morava river basin in the central Balkans. These sites include Pećina kod stene (“cave above rock”) in the Jelašnica gorge, Velika Vranovica (referred to in the literature also as Donja pećina) in the Sićevo Gorge, Bukovac near Despotovac in the valley of the Resa- va river, a tributary of the Velika Morava river and Velika pećina (Large cave) in the narrow canyon of the Crna reka (river), a tributary of the Tisnica river.” ref  

The Genomic History of Southeastern Europe 

“Lepenski Vir (2 individuals) Lepenski Vir is one of the best-known archaeological sites in Europe. Situated 3 mi downstream from Padina in the upper part of the Iron Gates Gorge. The most abundant archaeological remains from Lepenski Vir belong to the Mesolithic and Early Neolithic periods, although there are also traces of occupation dated to the Chalcolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Roman and Medieval periods. This is an area where an unprecedented array of archaeological features and artifacts relating to repeated use of the site over thousands of years was found.” ref

“These included the remains of around 70 buildings with trapezoidal bases and (often) furnished with lime plaster floors and stone bordered hearths, over 200 burials, and exceptional numbers of stone and bone artworks and body ornaments. A revised chronological framework with three main phases of Stone Age occupation of the site: Early–Middle Mesolithic, 11,500–9,300 years ago (‘Proto-Lepenski Vir’), Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition,  8,150–7,950 years ago (‘Lepenski Vir I–II’), Early/Middle Neolithic, 7,950–7,500 years ago (‘Lepenski Vir III’).” ref

“No evidence of a Late Mesolithic (9,300–8,200 years ago) occupation has been identified at Lepenski Vir, but the phase is well represented among the burials from Padina, Vlasac, Hajdučka Vodenica, Schela Cladovei and Ostrovul Corbului.” ref

Here is genetic data from two individuals: 

• “I4665 / LEPI 54E This sample (a fragment of compact bone from the diaphysis of the left femur) comes from Burial 54e, one of five individuals (labelled a-e) that constituted ‘Burial 54’ and who were buried within the confines of a stratigraphically older building (65/XXXV). The skeleton (tentatively identified as that of a young adult female, around 20 years of age at death) was lying in the extended supine position, with the arms extended along the sides of the body. The orientation of the burial was parallel to the Danube with the head downriver. A direct measurement of 8,210–7,925 years ago) dates this individual to Borić’s Mesolithic-Neolithic transition (‘Lepenski Vir I–II’) phase. This dating is lower than the Mesolithic average and suggests a mixed terrestrial and aquatic diet, and the association with the skeleton of a bracelet of disk-shaped limestone beads, which are technologically characteristic of Neolithic modes of manufacturing and aesthetics.  Analysis of tooth enamel suggests the individual was an immigrant whose childhood years were spent outside the Iron Gates region.” ref

 • ” I4666/ LEPI_61 This sample (a fragment of compact bone from the diaphysis of the right femur) comes from Burial 61. This extended supine inhumation burial of a male child (~8 years) was found below the floor of trapezoidal building 40. The burial was oriented parallel to the Danube with the head downriver. It it is possible burial was placed here before the construction of the building floor as no burial pit at the floor level was identified. A date of around 8,225–7,910 years ago for the burial to Borić’s Mesolithic-Neolithic transition (‘Lepenski Vir I–II’) phase, suggests a typical Mesolithic diet in which fish was the main source of protein.” ref

“Mesolithic graves nos. 2 (left) and 25 (right) from Ostrovul Corbului.” ref 

Ostrovul Corbului (2 individuals) 

“Ostrovul Corbului is a former island in the Danube, 28 km downriver from Schela Cladovei in the “Downstream Area” of the Iron Gates. Remains of prehistoric settlement and burials assigned to various prehistoric periods (Mesolithic, Neolithic, Eneolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age) were identified. A group of six primary inhumation burials (M2, M9, M24, M25, M30 and M32) were found in Sector A, at the downstream end of the island. Previous authors assigned these burials to either the Early Neolithic or the Mesolithic. AMS 14C dates on four of the burials (M2, M25, M30 and M32) confirm that they all belong to the Mesolithic. The ages of M2 and M25 fall in the Middle Mesolithic between 9,715- 9,190 years ago, and that of M32 in the Late Mesolithic between 9,021–8,473 years ago.” ref  

• “I4081 / OSTCOR1a+1b / ROM47 These samples (a premolar and a canine) belong to an adult male from Burial M2. The body appears to have been buried in a sitting position with the legs flexed, raised and crossed at the ankles. Apart from a fragment of red ochre, no grave goods accompanied the burial.” ref 

• “I4582 / OSTCOR32 This sample (a petrous temporal bone) comes from Burial M32. The skeleton (identified as that of an adult male, around 50 years of age at death) was lying in the extended supine position, with the arms extended along the sides of the body. No associated grave goods were reported.” ref 

Schela Cladovei (2 individuals) 

“Schela Cladovei, in Romania, is a large, open-air site on an Early Holocene terrace adjacent to the River Danube, c. 67 km downriver from Vlasac. It is situated a little more than 4.3 miles below the Iron Gates I dam, in the “Downstream Area” of the Iron Gates. The remains in those parts of the site that have been investigated relate mainly to the Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic occupation. A large series of dates on animal and human remains places the Late Mesolithic occupation between around 9,200-8,300 years ago, and the Early Neolithic occupation between around 8,000-7,600 years ago. At least 75 burials, containing the remains of over a hundred individuals, have been excavated from the Schela Cladovei site so far, most of them dating to the Late Mesolithic.” ref 

Genetic data from two individuals: 

• I4607 / SCCL_46 / 1 (compact bone from diaphysis of right femur) 

• I4655 / SCCL_50 (compact bone from diaphysis of right tibia) 

“These were among 21 burials uncovered in an area c. 25 x 4 m immediately adjacent to the Danube riverbank between 1991 and 1996. Of those 21 burials, which included adults and children, 11 (all adults) have a date ranging between 9,010-8,600 years ago. Burials M46.1 and M50 were extended supine burrials of adult males, with their long axes aligned more-or-less parallel with the Danube. Body position and bone collagen δ15N values of >14‰, indicative of diets based on aquatic resources, point to a Late Mesolithic age  confirmed burials.” ref 

 Măgura Buduiasca (Teleor 3) (1 individual) 

“The Măgura Buduiasca site is in southern Romania, on the Teleorman River lower terrace, 10 km Northeast from the town of Alexandria (Teleorman County). Involving evidence of different Neolithic materials, revealing a large flat settlement. These investigations confirmed the following Neolithic stratigraphy: Early Neolithic (Starčevo-Criş), Middle Neolithic (Dudeşti culture), and Late Neolithic (Vădastra culture), implying a time span between around 8,100-7,200 years ago. The Neolithic occupation is overlapped in some areas by remains from later occupations (e.g. Bronze Age, Iron Age, Migration Period, and Middle Age). The Early Neolithic habitation is characterized by numerous pit-huts, pits, and hearths, but also a rich material culture that includes potsherds, figurines, flint and stone tools, grinding stones, wood items, bone ornaments and tools, shells, animal bones and scattered human bones. The Early Neolithic occupation from that site between 8,064-7,746 years ago.” ref 

• “I2534 / TEL1 The sample included in the current study (a cranial fragment) belongs to an adult individual discovered in a Starčevo-Criş pit labeled C48. In the same pit were found other scattered human bones (a pair of humeri and another skull fragment), and it is possible that they belong to the same individual. Potsherds, flint tools, shells, and animal bones completed the pit inventory.” ref 

Hajdučka Vodenica (4 individuals) 

“The Mesolithic-Neolithic site of Hajdučka Vodenica is situated downstream from the Lower Gorge known as Kazan (“Cauldron” in Romanian and Serbian) in the Danube Gorges area, on the right (Serbian) bank of the river. At Hajdučka Vodenica there are two distinct areas of the site. In the first, southwestern area, rectangular stone-lined hearths were found with several superposed levels of stone constructions and associated with several burials. The second, central area of the site consisted of a burial “chamber” where 29 burials were placed in extended supine positions primarily parallel with the Danube (with the exception of Burials 9 and 12, which were perpendicular to the Danube) and associated with a rectangular stone-lined hearth, named “sacrificial” hearth area, which was surrounded by a packed red burnt earth flooring. The analyzed individual that was marked as Burial 19-20 belongs to one of several primary burials that were buried close to each other in this zone along with Burial 21 found buried still deeper inside the slope. The dates on human remains from Hajdučka Vodenica range between around 9,100–7,800 years ago, covering the period of the Late Mesolithic and the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition phase.”  ref 

Padina (12 individuals) 

“The Mesolithic-Neolithic site of Padina – Gospođin Vir (Serbian: “Lady’s Whirlpool”) is situated at the upstream entrance to the Lady’s Whirlpool Gorge of the Danube Gorges area, on the right (Serbian) bank of the river. The site involves three connected coves marked as sectors I, II, and III along the bank of the Danube. Excavations produced 33 burials of primarily Early to Late Mesolithic date, comprising primary inhumations/burials, primary disturbed burials and secondary inhumations. However, three individuals (burials 4, 5 and 5a) found in a group burial at sector I are dated to the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition phase at the end of the 7th millennium BCE. A total of 13 dates on human remains from Padina range date between around 11,200–7,800 years ago.” ref 

“The samples analyzed in the current study come from burials found at each of the three investigated sectors. Burials 9, 12, 14, 16a, 17, 18b, 22, 24, and 26 all come from Sector III and were found on the slope at the rear of the site away from the river and, based on their stratigraphic positions and some of the associated dates to the Early/Middle Mesolithic. Burial position could not be established for burial 9, which was found in the vicinity of more than two millennia later trapezoidal building structure 17. Close to a linear stone construction built in several levels were found burials 12, an extended supine inhumation; 14, an extended supine inhumation; 16a, seated with crossed lower limbs; 17, partly disturbed; 18b, some sort of seated position; 22, partly disturbed; and 26 as an extended supine inhumation.” ref 

“Burial 24, an extended supine inhumation, was found farther to the south from the burial concentration found around the stone construction. At Sector II, Burials 6, a seated inhumation, and 30, a crouched inhumation, were found. A possibly Early/Middle Mesolithic date can be assumed for both burials in the absence of radiocarbon dates. At Sector I, Burials 4 and 5 were found one on top of the other with Burial 4 placed over Burial 5. Burial 4 was found as an extended supine inhumation and Burial 5 was a crouched inhumation and both of these burials can on the basis of radiocarbon dates be assigned to the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition phase in the last century of the 7th and the first century of the 6th millennium BCE.” ref 

Vlasac (17 individuals) 

“The Mesolithic-Neolithic site of Vlasac is situated in the upper part of the Danube Gorges, on the right (Serbian) bank of the river around 2 miles downstream from Lepenski Vir. Excavations produced over a hundred burials of primarily or exclusively Mesolithic date, comprising primary inhumations and secondary inhumations and cremations. A total of 14 dates from human remains from Vlasac range between around 11,300–8,000 years ago. Burial 17 was a seated burial with crossed lower limbs was dated to the Middle Mesolithic at the end of the 9th and the beginning of the 8th millennia BCE. Burial 16 was a disarticulated skull found close to Burial 17 and by association could also date to the same Middle Mesolithic time span.” ref 

“Burial 51B was a secondary inhumation, comprising a pile of disarticulated bones. Burial 45 was a disturbed (extended supine?) inhumation burial of which only a small number of bones were found in situ (skull, clavicle, right humerus and a number of vertebrae). The skull was found resting on a large stone. Around the skull were found a number of cyprinid teeth (possibly ornamental appliqués originally attached to some form of headgear). Behind the stone supporting the skull was found a pile of cremated human bones and charred cyprinid teeth, designated Burial 45a, although these may represent secondary treatment and disposal of bones exhumed from Burial 45. Adult male Burial 6 was found as an extended supine inhumation and the torso of this individual was covered by ochre while a neonate burial marked as 6a was found on the right shoulder of this inhumation. The disarticulated remains of likely primary disturbed inhumation Burial 9 were found in a natural rocky depression, encircled by large rocks.” ref 

Burial 80A was an extended supine inhumation of which only lower limbs were preserved in situ due to the damage caused by the interment of another extended supine inhumation Burial 80. All these burials can be dated to the duration of the regional Late Mesolithic. Three of the burials sampled for this study had previously been radiocarbon dated. 103,104 Burial 51A dates to around 9,595–9,080 years ago, Burial 83 dates to around 9,030–8,460 years ago, while Burial 45 dates to 8,680–8,375 yeara ago. Based on these results, Burial 51A belongs to the end of the Middle Mesolithic or beginning of the Late Mesolithic in the Iron Gates, while Burials 45 and 83 can be assigned to the Late Mesolithic. Burials U21, H53, U62, U69 and U64 all come from a multiple burial with a vertical stratification of burial remains found in Trench 3.” ref 

“U21 is a disarticulated child skull found in a secondary burial position on top of the burial sequence and was possibly removed from a primary burial containing the remains of a child of the same age found laid atop of primary burial H63 within a stack of burials at this location. H53 is the last primary burial that caps the sequence of burials and was placed in extended supine position parallel with the Danube with the head pointing to the upstream direction of the river. U62 and U69 were two neonate burials found one on top of the other interred through the remains of a primary disturbed headless burial H63 belonging to an adult female.” ref 

“These two neonates as well as other burials in this sequence apart from the last burial, individual marked as H53, were placed in extended supine positions parallel with the Danube with the head pointing to the downstream direction of the river. The analyzed disarticulated remains marked as U64 were found in the burial fill of primary burial H63 and probably come from partially preserved primary disturbed adult male burial H81, which were disturbed by the interment of H63. If this assumption about the connection between the disarticulated remains in the infill of H63 and the undisturbed remains of H81 were true, U64 dates to the Late Mesolithic of the mid-6th millennium BCE based on a direct date for H81 and are several centuries older than the upper part of the burial sequences with burials U21, H53, H63, U62 and U69, which all can be dated to the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition period at the end of the 7th millennium BCE.” ref 

“Burial H232 was found in the same trench as the previously described burial sequence but as a single burial one meter to the south of the burial sequence and was placed directly on top of a cremation pit containing human remains, charcoal, and burnt artifacts. Burials H267, H317, and H327 were found in Trenches 3 and 1 as single burials to the west of the described burial sequence all three placed as extended supine inhumations parallel with the Danube and with the head pointing in the downstream direction.” ref 

 The Iron Gates / Danube Gorges 

“Six important sites are Hajdučka Vodenica, Lepinski Vir, Ostrovul Corbului, Padina, Schela Cladovei and Vlasac situated in that part of the Lower Danube Valley that forms the modern political border between Romania and Serbia, known archaeologically as the Iron Gates or Danube Gorges region. Here, a large series of Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites. The Iron Gates reach of the Danube falls naturally into two contrasting physiographic zones – the 80 miles long Iron Gates Gorges (sometimes referred to as the “Danube Gorges”) where the river cuts through the Carpathian Mountain range, and the 50 miles long “Downstream Area” of more moderate relief where the Danube enters the Wallachian Plain. The Iron Gates region has a more-or-less continuous record of Stone Age settlement from around 14,700–7,500 years ago, and over 400 Mesolithic and Early Neolithic burials have been recorded from 15 sites.” ref  

“At 11,500/9,200–8,000 years ago the Lepenski Vir site is a series of Mesolithic villages located on the Danube River, on the Serbian bank of the Iron Gates Gorge. This Iron Gates culture of the Balkans involves one large site with around ten satellite villages.” ref, ref  

“Lepenski Vir is located on the right bank of the Danube in eastern Serbia, within the Iron Gates gorge. The main site consists of several archeological phases starting with Proto-Lepenski Vir, then Lepenski Vir Ia-e, Lepenski Vir II and Lepenski Vir III, whose occupation spanned from 1,500 to 2,000 years, from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic period, when it was succeeded by the Neolithic Starčevo culture and Vinča culture both around 85 miles upstream on the Danube from Lepenski Vir. A number of satellite villages belonging to the Lepenski Vir culture and time period were discovered in the surrounding area. These additional sites include Hajdučka Vodenica, Padina, Vlasac, Ikaona, Kladovska Skela, and others. Found artifacts include tools made from stone and bones, the remains of houses, and numerous sacral objects including unique stone sculptures.” ref

Picture link: ref

Starčevo–Körös–Criş culture (8,200-6,500 years ago)

“The village of Starčevo, the type site, is located on the north bank of the Danube in Serbia (Vojvodina province), opposite Belgrade. It represents the earliest settled farming society in the area, although hunting and gathering still provided a significant portion of the inhabitants’ diet.
Parallel and closely related cultures also include the Karanovo culture in Bulgaria, Criş in Romania and the pre-Sesklo in Greece. The Starčevo culture covered sizable area that included most of present-day Serbia and Montenegro, as well as parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Republic of Macedonia and Romania.” ref

“The human remains of Starčevo culture were found three different Y haplogroups: H2, which is common in Dravidian speakin people of India, Pakistan, and Romania, G2a2a1 and G2a2b2b1a, which are common in the Caucasus and Iran. Also, there were found four different mtDNA lineages: T1a, N1a1a1, K1a4, and W5. All male and female lineages correspond to those that were found in European Neolithic farmers.” ref

• “Encompasses various Early Neolithic archeological cultures from the Balkans, including those of Anzabegovo, Chavdar, Conevo, Criș, Dudești-Cernica, Karanovo, Kőrös, Kremikovci, Ovtcharovo, Porodin, Starčevo, and Tsonevo. It is commonly known simply under the appellation of Starčevo culture.” ref
• “Represents the advance of Early Neolithic farmers from Anatolia/Turkey to south-east Europe, including present-day Bulgaria, Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia, Bosnia, northern Croatia, south-west Hungary, and Romania. The Starčevo–Kőrös–Criș culture is the precursor of the Alföld Linear Pottery, the LBK culture, and the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture – in other words, all the Early Neolithic cultures from northern France to western Ukraine.” ref
• “Pottery types varied between regional groups, and could be painted in white-on-red and dark-on-red as in the Starčevo culture around Serbia, or be unpainted as in the Körös culture in Hungary. Ceramic vessels were typically decorated with net patterns, spirals, garlands, floral motives, ridges, and finger imprints. Anthropomorphic and zoomorphic representations of goats and deer were common.” ref
• “Very few graves were found in the Starčevo culture, and those were generally single graves. Most burials identified belonged to women or children, who were placed in the graves in a crouched position, lying on the right or the left side. They were inhumed under the floors of personal residences, a practice that continued until 4000 BCE. Graves rarely contained goods. When they did, it was pottery, grinding stones, flint tools or jewelry.” ref
• “The Neolithic lifestyle was brought to Europe by Anatolian/Turkish farmers – represented by Y-haplogroup G2a. For the first 1,700 years of agriculture in the Balkans, those Near Eastern farmers did not intermingle much with Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers in the Balkans. The few Mesolithic Balkanic lineages that may have been assimilated by farmers would have belonged to Y-haplogroup I2 and mt-haplogroups HV0 and V, and possibly J1c, J2a1, K1c, and T2. Since the Balkans were relatively depopulated in the Mesolithic, it is likely that these assimilations took place in north-west Anatolia/Turkey, where European hunter-gatherers had migrated.” ref
• Ancient DNA shows that Starčevo people had fair skin, brown eyes, and dark hair, in contrast to Mesolithic Europeans who had darker skin, dark hair, but blue eyes. Both groups were lactose intolerant.” ref

Picture Link: ref

Turdaș–Vinča culture (7,700–6,500 years ago)

“Farming technology first introduced to the region during the First Temperate Neolithic was developed further by the Vinča culture, fuelling a population boom and producing some of the largest settlements in prehistoric Europe. These settlements maintained a high degree of cultural uniformity through the long-distance exchange of ritual items but were probably not politically unified. Various styles of zoomorphic and anthropomorphic figurines are hallmarks of the culture, as are the Vinča symbols, which some conjecture to be the earliest form of proto-writing. Although not conventionally considered part of the Chalcolithic or “Copper Age”, the Vinča culture provides the earliest known example of copper metallurgy.” ref

“The Vinča culture occupied a region of southeastern Europe (i.e. the Balkans) corresponding mainly to modern-day Serbia (with Kosovo), but also parts of Romania, Bulgaria, Bosnia, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Greece. This region had already been settled by farming societies of the First Temperate Neolithic, but during the Vinča period sustained population growth led to an unprecedented level of settlement size and density along with the population of areas that were bypassed by earlier settlers. And DNA of many belonged to the paternal haplogroup H, that is common in Dravidian speaking people in India, Pakistan, and Romania. Haplogroup G-M201 was also found frequently.” ref

“General plan of the Lepenski Vir I habitations, showing house locations “L”, as well as radiocarbon dates of some houses based on charcoal samples. After Radovanović, 1996, with acknowledgement to Boric 1999 and Bailey 2000. The radiocarbon ages of houses 36, 37 and 54 are weighted means of several measurements. The locations and ages of two Lepenski Vir II houses, IX and XXXII, are also shown. From: Bonsall et al, 2000, ‘Stable Isotopes, Radiocarbon and the Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in the Iron Gates’, Documenta Praehistorica XXVII.” ref  

“Lepenski Vir gives us a rare opportunity to observe the gradual transition from the huntergatherer way of life of early humans to the agricultural economy of the Neolithic.Archaeological findings in the surrounding area show evidence of temporary settlements, probably built for the purpose of hunting and gathering of food or raw materials. This suggests a complex semi-nomadic economy with managed exploitation of resources in the area not immediately surrounding the village, something remarkable for the traditional view of Mesolithic people of Europe.” ref 

“More complexity in an economy leads to professional specialization and thus to social differentiation. This is clearly evident in the layout of the Lepenski Vir Ia-e settlement. The village is well planned. All houses are built according to one complex geometric pattern. These remains of houses constitute the distinct Lepenski Vir architecture, one of the important achievements of this culture. The main layout of the village is clearly visible.” ref 

“The dead were buried outside the village in an elaborate cemetery. The only exceptions were apparently a few notable elders who were buried behind the fireplaces in houses, according to a religious ritual. The complex social structure was dominated by a religion which probably served as a binding force for the community and a means of coordination of activity for its members. Numerous sacral objects that were discovered in this layer support this theory. The most remarkable examples are piscine sculptures, unique to the Lepenski Vir culture, which represent one of the first examples of monumental sacral art on European soil.” ref 

There was at least three phases seen at Lepenski Vir; the first two are what’s left of a complex foraging society; and Phase III represents a farming community.  

“Houses in Lepenski Vir, throughout Phase I and II occupations, are laid out in a strict parallelepiped plan, and each village, each collection of houses is arranged in a fan shape across the face of the sandy terrace. Several of the houses held altars and sculptures, sculpted out of the sandstone rock. Evidence seems to indicate that the last function of the houses at Lepenski Vir was as a burial site for a single individual. It’s clear that the Danube flooded the site regularly, perhaps as much as twice a year, making permanent residence impossible; but that residence resumed after the floods is certain. ” ref 

“Many of the stone sculptures are monumental in size; some, found in front of houses at Lepenski Vir, are quite distinctive, combining human and fish characteristics. Other artifacts found in and around the site include a vast array of decorated and undecorated artifacts, such as miniature stone axes and figurines, with lesser amounts of bone and shell. And at the same time as foragers and fishers lived at Lepenski Vir, early farming communities sprang up around it, known as the Starcevo-Cris culture, who exchanged pottery and food with the inhabitants of Lepenski Vir.” ref  

“The Starčevo culture, sometimes included within a larger grouping known as the Starčevo–Körös–Criş culture of Southeastern Europe, around 8,200- 6,500 years ago located on the north bank of the Danube in Serbia. It represents the earliest settled farming society in the area, although hunting and gathering still provided a significant portion of the inhabitants’ diet. Parallel and closely related cultures also include the Karanovo culture in Bulgaria, Criş in Romania and the pre-Sesklo in Greece.  The Körös is a similar culture in Hungary named after the River Körös with a closely related culture.  In human remains of Starčevo culture were three different Y haplogroups: H2, G2a2a1 and G2a2b2b1a. Also there were found four different mtDNA lineages: T1a, N1a1a1, K1a4 and W5. All male and female lineages correspond to those that were found in European Neolithic farmers.” ref 

“Researchers believe that over time Lepenski Vir evolved from a small foraging settlement to the ritual center for the farming communities in the area–into a place where the past was revered and the old ways followed. The geography of Lepenski Vir may have played an enormous part in the ritual significance of the village. Across the Danube from the site is the trapezoidal mountain Treskavek, whose shape is repeated in the floor plans of the houses; and in the Danube in front of the site is a large whirlpool, the image of which is repeatedly carved into many of the stone sculptures. Like Catal Hoyuk in Turkey, which is dated to roughly the same period, the site of Lepenski Vir provides us with a glimpse into Mesolithic culture and society, into ritual patterns and gender relationships, into the transformation of foraging societies into agricultural societies, and into resistance to that change.” ref 

“This burial is from the early Mesolithic stage which is proto-Lepenski Vir. Whereas, the general Lepenski Vir, located in Serbia, Mesolithic Iron Gates culture of the Balkans. Around 11,500/9,200–8,000 years ago. It is a grave discovered in the south-eastern part of the settlement of Proto-Lepenski Vir. The shape of this grave, as well as the position of the skeleton, is quite exceptional. The shallow grave pit has approximately the same trapezoidal form as the foundations of the houses of Lepenski Vir I and has the same orientation as the buildings of that settlement.” ref, ref, ref, ref 

“A particularly important hunter-gatherer population that we report is from the Iron Gates region that straddles the border of present-day Romania and Serbia. This population  (Iron_Gates_HG) is represented in our study by 40 individuals from five sites. Modeling Iron  Gates hunter-gatherers as a mixture of WHG and EHG (Supplementary Table 3) shows that  they are intermediate between WHG (~85%) and EHG (~15%). However, this qpAdm model 244 does not fit well (p=0.0003, Supplementary table 3) and the Iron Gates hunter-gatherers carry mitochondrial haplogroup K1 (7/40) as well as other subclades of haplogroups U (32/40) and H (1/40). This contrasts with WHG, EHG and Scandinavian hunter-gatherers who almost all carry haplogroups U5 or U2. One interpretation is that the Iron Gates hunter-gatherers have ancestry that is not present in either WHG or EHG. Possible scenarios include genetic contact between the ancestors of the Iron Gates population and Anatolia, or that the Iron Gates population is related to the source population from which the WHG split during a reexpansion into Europe from the Southeast after the Last Glacial Maximum. A notable finding from the Iron Gates concerns the four individuals from the site of Lepenski Vir, two of whom (I4665 & I5405, 8,200-7,600 years ago), have entirely NW Anatolian Neolithicrelated ancestry. Strontium and Nitrogen isotope data indicate that both these individuals were migrants from outside the Iron Gates, and ate a primarily terrestrial diet. A third individual (I4666, 8,070 years ago) has a mixture of NW Anatolian Neolithic-related and hunter-gatherer-related ancestry and ate a primarily aquatic diet, while a fourth, probably earlier, individual (I5407) had entirely hunter-gatherer-related ancestry. We also identify one individual from Padina (I5232), dated to 7,950 years ago that had a mixture of NW Anatolian Neolithic-related and hunter-gatherer-related ancestry. These results demonstrate that the Iron Gates was a region of interaction between groups distinct in both ancestry and subsistence strategy.” ref 

Burial practices in the Iron Gates Mesolithic 

“Some of the best evidence in Europe for Mesolithic burial practices is found at sites in the Iron Gates section of the Lower Danube Valley. Burials dating to the Mesolithic and Early Neolithic (c. 12,500-5500 cal BC) have been recorded from at least 15 sites, four of which – Lepenski Vir, Padina, Schela Cladovei and Vlasac – each contained large numbers of graves, with evidence for the existence of formal disposal areas or ‘cemeteries’. The burials encompass a range of mortuary practices, including single inhumation in various body positions, multiple inhumation, cremation and excarnation.” ref   

Treatment of the dead Lepenski Vir culture

“We know of graves, partly in large numbers, from many settlements of the Lepenski Vir culture (cf. for the following Radovanović 1996, 160-224 and Srejović/Letica 1978). E. g., in Vlasac 384 burials were found, in Lepenski Vir 146 and in Padina still 75. Icoana yielded three graves, Hajdučka Vodenica 30, Schela Cladovei 33, Ostrovul Corbului four. Flint and quartz artefacts, bone objects (awls, projectiles), antler objects, boar tusks, hammer stones, stone axes, necklaces made from snails’ shells and decorated objects made from various materials were used as grave goods. Besides, there is evidence for the scattering of ochre and graphite, and some of the dead are covered all over with teeth of Cyprinidae (maybe worn on the clothes), fish bones, animal bones (especially dogs’ mandibulae; horns and antlers), seeds, stones and human bones (mainly mandibulae).” ref 

“In the Iron Gates, inhumations as well as secondary burials and cremations were found. Secondary burials are characterized by the exposure of the deceased’s body to the air before it was buried. It is unclear whether further treatment was administered. Sometimes it seems as if the skull or postcranial body parts were removed in such burials. We know of individuals lying straight on their backs and individuals lying in crouched position on their side. There are even burials in a sitting position. Interestingly, the dead are oriented either parallel to the river Danube or perpendicular to it. An orientation according to a special direction was uncommon. Usually, one person was laid down in a burial pit, however, there are also two or more individuals in one grave. The graves were dug on the settlement terraces. Sometimes they are surrounded by stones, but every once in a while not even a pit was dug but people would use natural depressions in the soil. Sometimes the deceased were covered with a stone paving. Mostly the dead are buried within the settlements. They can be found between the houses, often, however, inside the buildings, under the floors, partly with reference to the hearth or to an “altar.” ref 

“Lepenski Vir: burial 69 – dorsal decubitus inhumation in the ‘butterfly’ posture.” ref 

 “Child Burial 97 underneath the floor of House 31, Lepenski Vir.” ref  

“Ostrovul Corbului: burial M25, described as in a sitting position, Lepenski Vir.” ref 

“Some dead people were found to be buried beneath the houses, and under the floors which had been exceptionally well preserved. Although these were believed to have been prominent people such as elders, the skeletons of children were also found. It is therefore unknown what kind of formula was used to decide who ought to be buried beneath the house or in the cemetery. It is, however, believed that the culture practiced a religious cult of heads, evidenced by the sculptures only being of heads. From this perspective, one can therefore also argue that ritual burials may have involved the removal of the skull from the dead person’s head to bury it separately from the body.” ref 

“These skulls (males) would be buried amidst crushed stones and formed the base upon which houses would be later built. The skeleton that has been preserved best is the one which was excavated from house 69 and was dug shallow. This skull has been found to originate from the period of Vir I or the Proto-Vir. The skeletons of the people buried under the floor also show that the bodies were placed in such a way that the widening parts of the houses’ central installation are above the genitals. This has led to the conclusion by the researchers that it could be a symbol of birth, irrespective of the gender of the body buried. Ceramic vessels have also been found which were filled with ash, this may have had some ritual meaning.” ref 

The Lepenski Vir Culture Development  

“The late Lepenski Vir (8,300–8,000 years ago) development was the development of the Trapezoidal buildings and monumental sculpture.  The main site consists of several archeological phases starting with Proto-Lepenski Vir, then Lepenski Vir Ia-e, Lepenski Vir II and Lepenski Vir III, whose occupation spanned from 1,500 to 2,000 years, from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic period, when it was succeeded by the Neolithic Vinča culture and Starčevo culture, both upstream the Danube, 135 km (84 mi) and 139 km (86 mi) from Lepenski Vir, respectively. A number of satellite villages belonging to the same culture and time period were discovered in the surrounding area. These additional sites include Hajdučka Vodenica, Padina, Vlasac, Ikaona, Kladovska Skela and others. Found artifacts include tools made from stone and bones, the remains of houses, and numerous sacral objects including unique stone sculptures.” ref 

“Lepenski Vir was the settlement of first Danubian settled farmers who were “the Children of the Sun.”  Set on terraces on both sides of the Danube we find the settlements of the Lepenski Vir culture. On the Romanian side, the important sites are Ostrovul Mare, Ostrovul Corbului, Schela Cladovei, Ostrovul Banului, Răzvrata, Icoana, Veterani-terrace and Veterani Cave, Climente I and II, Băile Herculane, Cuina Turcului, Vodneac, Ilişova, Izlaz, Sviniţa, Vîrtop, Alibeg and Privod. On the Serbian side, we find the eponymous place Lepenski Vir and furthermore, Padina, Stubica, Vlasac, Hajdučka Vodenica, Velesnica and Kula.” ref

“Lepenski Vir is the Mesolithic site some 15 km north from the city of Donji Milanovac, which is an around 8000-year-old Mesolithic settlement of the Lepenski Vir after the ice had begun to melt from the glaciers which covered so much of the Northern Hemisphere, and the time when the climate became significantly warmer. The mild climate on terraces of the Danube attracted inhabitants of Lepenski Vir. People who lived for many generations in the settlement of Lepenski Vir used to build unusual and unique trapezoid-shaped huts whose entrance was turned towards the Danube with rectangular fireplaces built of stone blocks and small sanctuaries within their homes. The central position towards the East was given to the fire place and the fire, that emphasized connection with formation of warmth and rising of the Sun. House meant stability and security while the bones of ancestors enhanced this stability and made the connection with the/our history.” ref 

Danube Valley Civilization 

“The Danube Valley civilization is one of the oldest civilizations known in Europe. It existed from between 7,500-5,500 years ago in the Balkans and covered a vast area, in what is now Northern Greece to Slovakia (South to North), and Croatia to Romania (West to East). During the height of the Danube Valley civilization, it played an important role in south-eastern Europe through the development of copper tools, a writing system, advanced architecture, including two storey houses, and the construction of furniture, such as chairs and tables, all of which occurred while most of Europe was in the middle of the Stone Age. They developed skills such as spinning, weaving, leather processing, clothes manufacturing, and manipulated wood, clay and stone and they invented the wheel. They had an economic, religious and social structure.” ref

The region where the Danube Civilization and the Danube script flourished. The Danube script (framed inorange) was utilized inthe core area of theDanube Civilization (framed in red).

“The archaeological record of inscribed artifacts from the Neolithic and Copper Age of Southeastern Europe is persistently cheapened by many archaeologists as bearing “pre-writing” signs, “potter’s/owner’s marks”, “magic-religious symbols”, or generic “signs,” despite the presence of features that clearly argue against such suppositions. In its comprehensive meaning, the term “Danube script” indicates the original successful experiment with writing technology of the populations making up the Danube civilization and not a ”precursor” to writing, or “pre-writing,” as in some have described it. The signs utilized by the Turdaş culture, “Turdaş script” developed as a light regional variant under the framework of the Danube script. Inscribed finds and inscriptions from the Precucuteni-Cucuteni-Ariuşd-Trypillia cultural complex, evidencing the presence of a late script related to the Danube script” ref 

 “In Southeastern Europe, the experiment with literacy started around 7,900-7,800 years ago with the Starčevo-Criş (Körös) IB/IC and Karanovo I horizon, some two thousand years earlier than any other known writing. It is called the Danube script because it originally appeared in the central Balkan area and had an indigenous development. Ars scribendi quickly spread along the Danube River and tributaries northward to the Hungarian Great plain, westward to the Adriatic coast, southward down to Macedonia and Thessaly, and eastward to Ukraine. The Danube script flourished up to about 5,500-5,300 years ago, when an economic-social upheaval connected to an ecological crisis took place: according to some, there was an intrusion of new populations, whilst others have hypothesized the emergence of new elites. At that time, the Danube script was eclipsed and was later to be lost. The region where the Danube Civilization and the Danube script flourished. The Danube script (framed in orange) was utilized in the core area of the Danube Civilization (framed in red).” ref 

“The over-arching terminology of “Danube script” includes what has been called the “Vinča signs” and the“Vinča script”  or the Vinča symbols, sometimes called the Danube script, Vinča signs, Vinča script, Vinča–Turdaș script, Old European script, etc. The connection of the inscribed signs with the Vinča culture that flourished in the Developed/Middle Neolithic within the core area of the great Danube basin has a reasonably long history. However, it categorizes only a specific period of the Neolithic and Copper Age timeframe, has provincial boundaries, and does not evoke a clear geographical region. The experiment with literacy has to be extended in time (from Early Neolithic to Late Copper Age)and in space (embracing the whole Southeastern Europe).” ref, ref 

“Most of the inscriptions are on pottery, with the remainder appearing on ceramic spindle whorls, figurines, and a small collection of other objects. The symbols themselves consist of a variety of abstract and representative pictograms, including zoomorphic (animal-like) representations, combs or brush patterns and abstract symbols such as swastikas, crosses and chevrons. Over 85% of the inscriptions consist of a single symbol. Other objects include groups of symbols, of which some are arranged in no particularly obvious pattern, with the result that neither the order nor the direction of the signs in these groups is readily determinable.” ref  

“One of the more intriguing and hotly debated aspects of the Danube Valley civilization is their supposed written language. While some archaeologists have maintained that the ‘writing’ is actually just a series of geometric figures and symbols, others have maintained that it has the features of a true writing system.  If this theory is correct, it would make the script the oldest written language ever found, predating the Sumerian writings in Mesopotamia, and possibly even the Dispilio Tablet, which has been dated 5260 BC. Harald Haarmann, a German linguistic and cultural scientist, currently vice-president of the Institute of Archaeomythology, and leading specialist in ancient scripts and ancient languages, firmly supports the view that the Danube script is the oldest writing in the world. The tablets that were found are dated to 5,500 BC, and the glyphs on the tablets, according to Haarmann, are a form of language yet to be deciphered. The symbols, which are also called Vinca symbols, have been found in multiple archaeological sites throughout the Danube Valley areas, inscribed on pottery, figurines, spindles and other clay artifacts.” ref

 “The Dispilio tablet was found in a Neolithic lake settlement in Northern Greece near the city of Kastoria. A group of people used to occupy the settlement 7,000 to 8,000 years ago. The Dispilio tablet was one of many artifacts that were found in the area, however, the importance of the table lies in the fact that it has an unknown written text on it that goes back further than 5,000 BC. The wooden tablet was dated using the C12 method to have been made in 5260 BC, making it significantly older than the writing system used by the Sumerians. The text on the tablet includes a type of engraved writing which probably consists of a form of writing that pre-existed Linear B writing used by the Mycenaean Greeks. As well as the tablet, many other ceramic pieces were found that also have the same type of writing on them. Professor Xourmouziadis has suggested that this type of writing, which has not yet been deciphered, could be any form of communication including symbols representing the counting of possessions.” ref 

“The Kish tablet, a limestone tablet from Kish with pictographic, early cuneiform, writing, 5,500 years ago found at Tell al-Uhaymir, Babil Governorate, Iraq – the site of the ancient Sumerian city of Kish. The cuneiform script was developed from pictographic proto-writing in the late 4th millennium BC, stemming from the near eastern token system used for accounting. These tokens were in use from the 9th millennium BC and remained in occasional use even late in the 2nd millennium BC. It has been suggested that the token shapes were the original basis for some of the Sumerian pictographs. Mesopotamia’s “proto-literate” period spans roughly the 35th to 32nd centuries. The first documents unequivocally are written in Sumerian date to the5,100 years ago at Jemdet Nasr.” ref, ref

“Although it is generally agreed that small clay objects may have functioned in prehistory as accounting devices, there exists in Mesopotamia no sequence of evidence from their extensive 8th/7th millennium occurrence to the period in which writing developed, sometime in the 4th millennium. Indeed such objects are not common on 6th/5th millennium sites, a time when ‘potters’ marks’, another plausible precursor of writing, are found in both Mesopotamia and Iran. Nor, until the recent excavation of Abada, was there actual evidence for the close association of different types of small clay object within any ‘system’. Abada now provides such evidence, though only for a relatively short time span in the 5th millennium. Recent excavations at Tell Brak, in northeastern Syria, have also added a new dimension to the origins of recording systems, in the discovery of two pictographic tablets which reflect either an independent North Mesopotamian tradition or a very early stage of the development attested at Warka.” ref

“Proto-cuneiform tablet, Jemdet Nasr period, around 5,100-4,900 years ago from a site related to Tell Jemdet Nasr in Iraq‘s Babil Governorate Region a local development out of the preceding Uruk period and continues into the Early Dynastic I period of southern Mesopotamia.” ref, ref

“The term Danubian culture was the first agrarian society in central and eastern Europe. It covers the Linear Pottery culture (Linearbandkeramik, LBK), stroked pottery and Rössen cultures. The beginning of the Linear Pottery culture dates to around 5500 BC. It appears to have spread westwards along the valley of the river Danube and interacted with the cultures of Atlantic Europewhen they reached the Paris Basin. Danubian I peoples cleared forests and cultivated fertile loesssoils from the Balkans to the Low Countries and the Paris Basin. They made LBK pottery and kept domesticated cows, pigs, dogs, sheep and goats. The diagnostic tool of the culture is the Shoe-last celt, a kind of long thin stone adze which was used to fell trees and sometimes as a weapon, evidenced by the skulls found at Talheim, Neckar in Germany and Schletz in Austria.” ref  

“Settlements consisted of longhouses. They also imported spondylus shells from the Mediterranean. A second wave of the culture, which used painted pottery with Asiatic influences, superseded the first phase starting around 4500 BC. This was followed by a third wave which used stroke-ornamented ware. Danubian sites include those at Bylany in Bohemia and Köln-Lindenthalin Germany.” ref 

“During the height of the Danube Valley civilization, it played an important role in south-eastern Europe through the development of copper tools, a writing system, advanced architecture, including two storey houses, and the construction of furniture, such as chairs and tables, all of which occurred while most of Europe was in the middle of the Stone Age. They developed skillssuch as spinning, weaving, leather processing, clothes manufacturing, and manipulated wood, clay and stone and they invented the wheel. They had an economic, religious and social structure.” ref 

Lepenski Vir: Realm of the Fish-People?: In Focus

Lepenski Vir Civilization – History of the World for Kids | Educational Videos by Mocomi

Top 5 Obscure Ancient Civilizations

“This video discusses the Vinca Culture, Caral Supe, Happan/Indus Valley Civilization, Land of Punt, and Pre-dynastic ancient Egypt, specifically the Naqadan and Badarian cultures.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref 

Animism: Respecting the Living World by Graham Harvey 

“How have human cultures engaged with and thought about animals, plants, rocks, clouds, and other elements in their natural surroundings? Do animals and other natural objects have a spirit or soul? What is their relationship to humans? In this new study, Graham Harvey explores current and past animistic beliefs and practices of Native Americans, Maori, Aboriginal Australians, and eco-pagans. He considers the varieties of animism found in these cultures as well as their shared desire to live respectfully within larger natural communities. Drawing on his extensive casework, Harvey also considers the linguistic, performative, ecological, and activist implications of these different animisms.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Low Gods “Earth” or Tutelary deity and High Gods “Sky” or Supreme deity

“An Earth goddess is a deification of the Earth. Earth goddesses are often associated with the “chthonic” deities of the underworld. Ki and Ninhursag are Mesopotamian earth goddesses. In Greek mythology, the Earth is personified as Gaia, corresponding to Roman Terra, Indic Prithvi/Bhūmi, etc. traced to an “Earth Mother” complementary to the “Sky Father” in Proto-Indo-European religion. Egyptian mythology exceptionally has a sky goddess and an Earth god.” ref

“A mother goddess is a goddess who represents or is a personification of nature, motherhood, fertility, creation, destruction or who embodies the bounty of the Earth. When equated with the Earth or the natural world, such goddesses are sometimes referred to as Mother Earth or as the Earth Mother. In some religious traditions or movements, Heavenly Mother (also referred to as Mother in Heaven or Sky Mother) is the wife or feminine counterpart of the Sky father or God the Father.” ref

“Any masculine sky god is often also king of the gods, taking the position of patriarch within a pantheon. Such king gods are collectively categorized as “sky father” deities, with a polarity between sky and earth often being expressed by pairing a “sky father” god with an “earth mother” goddess (pairings of a sky mother with an earth father are less frequent). A main sky goddess is often the queen of the gods and may be an air/sky goddess in her own right, though she usually has other functions as well with “sky” not being her main. In antiquity, several sky goddesses in ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Near East were called Queen of Heaven. Neopagans often apply it with impunity to sky goddesses from other regions who were never associated with the term historically. The sky often has important religious significance. Many religions, both polytheistic and monotheistic, have deities associated with the sky.” ref

“In comparative mythology, sky father is a term for a recurring concept in polytheistic religions of a sky god who is addressed as a “father”, often the father of a pantheon and is often either a reigning or former King of the Gods. The concept of “sky father” may also be taken to include Sun gods with similar characteristics, such as Ra. The concept is complementary to an “earth mother“. “Sky Father” is a direct translation of the Vedic Dyaus Pita, etymologically descended from the same Proto-Indo-European deity name as the Greek Zeûs Pater and Roman Jupiter and Germanic Týr, Tir or Tiwaz, all of which are reflexes of the same Proto-Indo-European deity’s name, *Dyēus Ph₂tḗr. While there are numerous parallels adduced from outside of Indo-European mythology, there are exceptions (e.g. In Egyptian mythology, Nut is the sky mother and Geb is the earth father).” ref

Tutelary deity

“A tutelary (also tutelar) is a deity or spirit who is a guardian, patron, or protector of a particular place, geographic feature, person, lineage, nation, culture, or occupation. The etymology of “tutelary” expresses the concept of safety and thus of guardianship. In late Greek and Roman religion, one type of tutelary deity, the genius, functions as the personal deity or daimon of an individual from birth to death. Another form of personal tutelary spirit is the familiar spirit of European folklore.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) in Korean shamanism, jangseung and sotdae were placed at the edge of villages to frighten off demons. They were also worshiped as deities. Seonangshin is the patron deity of the village in Korean tradition and was believed to embody the Seonangdang. In Philippine animism, Diwata or Lambana are deities or spirits that inhabit sacred places like mountains and mounds and serve as guardians. Such as: Maria Makiling is the deity who guards Mt. Makiling and Maria Cacao and Maria Sinukuan. In Shinto, the spirits, or kami, which give life to human bodies come from nature and return to it after death. Ancestors are therefore themselves tutelaries to be worshiped. And similarly, Native American beliefs such as Tonás, tutelary animal spirit among the Zapotec and Totems, familial or clan spirits among the Ojibwe, can be animals.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) in Austronesian beliefs such as: Atua (gods and spirits of the Polynesian peoples such as the Māori or the Hawaiians), Hanitu (Bunun of Taiwan‘s term for spirit), Hyang (Kawi, Sundanese, Javanese, and Balinese Supreme Being, in ancient Java and Bali mythology and this spiritual entity, can be either divine or ancestral), Kaitiaki (New Zealand Māori term used for the concept of guardianship, for the sky, the sea, and the land), Kawas (mythology) (divided into 6 groups: gods, ancestors, souls of the living, spirits of living things, spirits of lifeless objects, and ghosts), Tiki (Māori mythology, Tiki is the first man created by either Tūmatauenga or Tāne and represents deified ancestors found in most Polynesian cultures). ” ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Mesopotamian Tutelary Deities can be seen as ones related to City-States 

“Historical city-states included Sumerian cities such as Uruk and Ur; Ancient Egyptian city-states, such as Thebes and Memphis; the Phoenician cities (such as Tyre and Sidon); the five Philistine city-states; the Berber city-states of the Garamantes; the city-states of ancient Greece (the poleis such as Athens, Sparta, Thebes, and Corinth); the Roman Republic (which grew from a city-state into a vast empire); the Italian city-states from the Middle Ages to the early modern period, such as Florence, Siena, Ferrara, Milan (which as they grew in power began to dominate neighboring cities) and Genoa and Venice, which became powerful thalassocracies; the Mayan and other cultures of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica (including cities such as Chichen Itza, Tikal, Copán and Monte Albán); the central Asian cities along the Silk Road; the city-states of the Swahili coast; Ragusa; states of the medieval Russian lands such as Novgorod and Pskov; and many others.” ref

“The Uruk period (ca. 4000 to 3100 BCE; also known as Protoliterate period) of Mesopotamia, named after the Sumerian city of Uruk, this period saw the emergence of urban life in Mesopotamia and the Sumerian civilization. City-States like Uruk and others had a patron tutelary City Deity along with a Priest-King.” ref

“Chinese folk religion, both past, and present, includes myriad tutelary deities. Exceptional individuals, highly cultivated sages, and prominent ancestors can be deified and honored after death. Lord Guan is the patron of military personnel and police, while Mazu is the patron of fishermen and sailors. Such as Tu Di Gong (Earth Deity) is the tutelary deity of a locality, and each individual locality has its own Earth Deity and Cheng Huang Gong (City God) is the guardian deity of an individual city, worshipped by local officials and locals since imperial times.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) in Hinduism, personal tutelary deities are known as ishta-devata, while family tutelary deities are known as Kuladevata. Gramadevata are guardian deities of villages. Devas can also be seen as tutelary. Shiva is the patron of yogis and renunciants. City goddesses include: Mumbadevi (Mumbai), Sachchika (Osian); Kuladevis include: Ambika (Porwad), and Mahalakshmi. In NorthEast India Meitei mythology and religion (Sanamahism) of Manipur, there are various types of tutelary deities, among which Lam Lais are the most predominant ones. Tibetan Buddhism has Yidam as a tutelary deity. Dakini is the patron of those who seek knowledge.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) The Greeks also thought deities guarded specific places: for instance, Athena was the patron goddess of the city of Athens. Socrates spoke of hearing the voice of his personal spirit or daimonion:

You have often heard me speak of an oracle or sign which comes to me … . This sign I have had ever since I was a child. The sign is a voice which comes to me and always forbids me to do something which I am going to do, but never commands me to do anything, and this is what stands in the way of my being a politician.” ref

“Tutelary deities who guard and preserve a place or a person are fundamental to ancient Roman religion. The tutelary deity of a man was his Genius, that of a woman her Juno. In the Imperial era, the Genius of the Emperor was a focus of Imperial cult. An emperor might also adopt a major deity as his personal patron or tutelary, as Augustus did Apollo. Precedents for claiming the personal protection of a deity were established in the Republican era, when for instance the Roman dictator Sulla advertised the goddess Victory as his tutelary by holding public games (ludi) in her honor.” ref

“Each town or city had one or more tutelary deities, whose protection was considered particularly vital in time of war and siege. Rome itself was protected by a goddess whose name was to be kept ritually secret on pain of death (for a supposed case, see Quintus Valerius Soranus). The Capitoline Triad of Juno, Jupiter, and Minerva were also tutelaries of Rome. The Italic towns had their own tutelary deities. Juno often had this function, as at the Latin town of Lanuvium and the Etruscan city of Veii, and was often housed in an especially grand temple on the arx (citadel) or other prominent or central location. The tutelary deity of Praeneste was Fortuna, whose oracle was renowned.” ref

“The Roman ritual of evocatio was premised on the belief that a town could be made vulnerable to military defeat if the power of its tutelary deity were diverted outside the city, perhaps by the offer of superior cult at Rome. The depiction of some goddesses such as the Magna Mater (Great Mother, or Cybele) as “tower-crowned” represents their capacity to preserve the city. A town in the provinces might adopt a deity from within the Roman religious sphere to serve as its guardian, or syncretize its own tutelary with such; for instance, a community within the civitas of the Remi in Gaul adopted Apollo as its tutelary, and at the capital of the Remi (present-day Rheims), the tutelary was Mars Camulus.” ref 

Household deity (a kind of or related to a Tutelary deity)

“A household deity is a deity or spirit that protects the home, looking after the entire household or certain key members. It has been a common belief in paganism as well as in folklore across many parts of the world. Household deities fit into two types; firstly, a specific deity – typically a goddess – often referred to as a hearth goddess or domestic goddess who is associated with the home and hearth, such as the ancient Greek Hestia.” ref

“The second type of household deities are those that are not one singular deity, but a type, or species of animistic deity, who usually have lesser powers than major deities. This type was common in the religions of antiquity, such as the Lares of ancient Roman religion, the Gashin of Korean shamanism, and Cofgodas of Anglo-Saxon paganism. These survived Christianisation as fairy-like creatures existing in folklore, such as the Anglo-Scottish Brownie and Slavic Domovoy.” ref

“Household deities were usually worshipped not in temples but in the home, where they would be represented by small idols (such as the teraphim of the Bible, often translated as “household gods” in Genesis 31:19 for example), amulets, paintings, or reliefs. They could also be found on domestic objects, such as cosmetic articles in the case of Tawaret. The more prosperous houses might have a small shrine to the household god(s); the lararium served this purpose in the case of the Romans. The gods would be treated as members of the family and invited to join in meals, or be given offerings of food and drink.” ref

“In many religions, both ancient and modern, a god would preside over the home. Certain species, or types, of household deities, existed. An example of this was the Roman Lares. Many European cultures retained house spirits into the modern period. Some examples of these include:

• Brownie (Scotland and England) or Hob (England) / Kobold (Germany) / Goblin / Hobgoblin
• Domovoy (Slavic)
• Nisse (Norwegian or Danish) / Tomte (Swedish) / Tonttu (Finnish)
• Húsvættir (Norse)” ref

“Although the cosmic status of household deities was not as lofty as that of the Twelve Olympians or the Aesir, they were also jealous of their dignity and also had to be appeased with shrines and offerings, however humble. Because of their immediacy they had arguably more influence on the day-to-day affairs of men than the remote gods did. Vestiges of their worship persisted long after Christianity and other major religions extirpated nearly every trace of the major pagan pantheons. Elements of the practice can be seen even today, with Christian accretions, where statues to various saints (such as St. Francis) protect gardens and grottos. Even the gargoyles found on older churches, could be viewed as guardians partitioning a sacred space.” ref

“For centuries, Christianity fought a mop-up war against these lingering minor pagan deities, but they proved tenacious. For example, Martin Luther‘s Tischreden have numerous – quite serious – references to dealing with kobolds. Eventually, rationalism and the Industrial Revolution threatened to erase most of these minor deities, until the advent of romantic nationalism rehabilitated them and embellished them into objects of literary curiosity in the 19th century. Since the 20th century this literature has been mined for characters for role-playing games, video games, and other fantasy personae, not infrequently invested with invented traits and hierarchies somewhat different from their mythological and folkloric roots.” ref

“In contradistinction to both Herbert Spencer and Edward Burnett Tylor, who defended theories of animistic origins of ancestor worship, Émile Durkheim saw its origin in totemism. In reality, this distinction is somewhat academic, since totemism may be regarded as a particularized manifestation of animism, and something of a synthesis of the two positions was attempted by Sigmund Freud. In Freud’s Totem and Taboo, both totem and taboo are outward expressions or manifestations of the same psychological tendency, a concept which is complementary to, or which rather reconciles, the apparent conflict. Freud preferred to emphasize the psychoanalytic implications of the reification of metaphysical forces, but with particular emphasis on its familial nature. This emphasis underscores, rather than weakens, the ancestral component.” ref

“William Edward Hearn, a noted classicist, and jurist, traced the origin of domestic deities from the earliest stages as an expression of animism, a belief system thought to have existed also in the neolithic, and the forerunner of Indo-European religion. In his analysis of the Indo-European household, in Chapter II “The House Spirit”, Section 1, he states:

The belief which guided the conduct of our forefathers was … the spirit rule of dead ancestors.” ref

“In Section 2 he proceeds to elaborate:

It is thus certain that the worship of deceased ancestors is a vera causa, and not a mere hypothesis. …

In the other European nations, the Slavs, the Teutons, and the Kelts, the House Spirit appears with no less distinctness. … [T]he existence of that worship does not admit of doubt. … The House Spirits had a multitude of other names which it is needless here to enumerate, but all of which are more or less expressive of their friendly relations with man. … In [England] … [h]e is the Brownie. … In Scotland this same Brownie is well known. He is usually described as attached to particular families, with whom he has been known to reside for centuries, threshing the corn, cleaning the house, and performing similar household tasks. His favorite gratification was milk and honey.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

“These ideas are my speculations from the evidence.”

I am still researching the “god‘s origins” all over the world. So you know, it is very complicated but I am smart and willing to look, DEEP, if necessary, which going very deep does seem to be needed here, when trying to actually understand the evolution of gods and goddesses. I am sure of a few things and less sure of others, but even in stuff I am not fully grasping I still am slowly figuring it out, to explain it to others. But as I research more I am understanding things a little better, though I am still working on understanding it all or something close and thus always figuring out more. 

Sky Father/Sky God?

“Egyptian: (Nut) Sky Mother and (Geb) Earth Father” (Egypt is different but similar)

Turkic/Mongolic: (Tengri/Tenger Etseg) Sky Father and (Eje/Gazar Eej) Earth Mother *Transeurasian*

Hawaiian: (Wākea) Sky Father and (Papahānaumoku) Earth Mother *Austronesian*

New Zealand/ Māori: (Ranginui) Sky Father and (Papatūānuku) Earth Mother *Austronesian*

Proto-Indo-European: (Dyḗus/Dyḗus ph₂tḗr) Sky Father and (Dʰéǵʰōm/Pleth₂wih₁) Earth Mother

Indo-Aryan: (Dyaus Pita) Sky Father and (Prithvi Mata) Earth Mother *Indo-European*

Italic: (Jupiter) Sky Father and (Juno) Sky Mother *Indo-European*

Etruscan: (Tinia) Sky Father and (Uni) Sky Mother *Tyrsenian/Italy Pre–Indo-European*

Hellenic/Greek: (Zeus) Sky Father and (Hera) Sky Mother who started as an “Earth Goddess” *Indo-European*

Nordic: (Dagr) Sky Father and (Nótt) Sky Mother *Indo-European*

Slavic: (Perun) Sky Father and (Mokosh) Earth Mother *Indo-European*

Illyrian: (Deipaturos) Sky Father and (Messapic Damatura’s “earth-mother” maybe) Earth Mother *Indo-European*

Albanian: (Zojz) Sky Father and (?) *Indo-European*

Baltic: (Perkūnas) Sky Father and (Saulė) Sky Mother *Indo-European*

Germanic: (Týr) Sky Father and (?) *Indo-European*

Colombian-Muisca: (Bochica) Sky Father and (Huythaca) Sky Mother *Chibchan*

Aztec: (Quetzalcoatl) Sky Father and (Xochiquetzal) Sky Mother *Uto-Aztecan*

Incan: (Viracocha) Sky Father and (Mama Runtucaya) Sky Mother *Quechuan*

China: (Tian/Shangdi) Sky Father and (Dì) Earth Mother *Sino-Tibetan*

Sumerian, Assyrian and Babylonian: (An/Anu) Sky Father and (Ki) Earth Mother

Finnish: (Ukko) Sky Father and (Akka) Earth Mother *Finno-Ugric*

Sami: (Horagalles) Sky Father and (Ravdna) Earth Mother *Finno-Ugric*

Puebloan-Zuni: (Ápoyan Ta’chu) Sky Father and (Áwitelin Tsíta) Earth Mother

Puebloan-Hopi: (Tawa) Sky Father and (Kokyangwuti/Spider Woman/Grandmother) Earth Mother *Uto-Aztecan*

Puebloan-Navajo: (Tsohanoai) Sky Father and (Estsanatlehi) Earth Mother *Na-Dene*

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref 

Sky Father/Sky Mother “High Gods” or similar gods/goddesses of the sky more loosely connected, seeming arcane mythology across the earth seen in Siberia, China, Europe, Native Americans/First Nations People and Mesopotamia, etc.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope (Said as “At” “Hope”)/(Autodidact Polymath but not good at math):

Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist, Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Jeweler, Poet, “autodidact” Philosopher, schooled in Psychology, and “autodidact” Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Pre-Historian (Knowledgeable in the range of: 1 million to 5,000/4,000 years ago). I am an anarchist socialist politically. Reasons for or Types of Atheism

My Website, My Blog, & Short-writing or Quotes, My YouTube, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, and My Email: damien.marie.athope@gmail.com